![]() “So we have to make the R&I untouchable, once approved in the. Since these ring fenced budgets are untouchable for cuts, cuts always end up in the R&I budget, the next big budget next to agriculture and cohesion,” says Deketelaere. “We are always the victim because the R&I budget is not ring fenced as are the other big budgets in agriculture and cohesion. ![]() Kurt Deketelaere, secretary general of the League of European Research Universities (LERU), says the fault lies in the design of the research programmes, which makes them more susceptible to cuts than other EU funds. “What is very clear is that the Council undermines its own priorities, and its reasoning is not solid,” says van den Hoek. The Parliament’s industry, research and energy committee’s ITRE has called this a ‘misuse’ of the financial regulation.įor research stakeholders, Parliament is obviously in the right. Of this, MEPs want €65 million to go to the ERC, €27 million to the MSCA programme, €12 million to the European Institute of Innovation and Technology and €41 million to the European Innovation Council.Īs per the Commission’s proposal, unspent money would go to fund the Chips Act, a policy priority the Commission added to the mix after the seven-year budgets were set and which it is now scrambling to fund. The Parliament demands reversal of the cuts proposed by the Council and wants unspent research money from 20 to go back into Horizon Europe next year. The two institutions are set to clash during the ongoing negotiations, with the next round of talks set for 12 October. “We cannot achieve the European Green Deal with what R&I we currently have today.”Īny cuts proposed by member states have to be approved by the Parliament, which promises to once again fiercely defend Horizon Europe funds. “There is a disconnect that we need to find a way to bridge,” says Mattias Björnmalm, deputy secretary general of the CESAER university association. Member states consistently highlight the role of science and innovation in tackling societal challenges, but appear oblivious to that fact at the negotiating table. Slicing the funding pot this way, research stakeholders say, undermines strategic priorities that depend on R&I to deliver technology for the EU’s envisioned green and digital future. ‘’When extra demands are being made on Horizon, extra money is required.” “Horizon should be safeguarded from these extra demands,” says Just van den Hoek, policy adviser at the Netherlands house for Education and Research. While that is a welcome initiative, both the Parliament and researchers believe it shouldn’t take from the already tight budget for R&D. The second priority for researchers is ensuring unspent money from 20 goes back into the research pot, instead of the EU’s new priorities, such as the Chips Act. ![]() If the Council has its way, there would be a €122 million cut to the European Research Council (ERC), €33 million to Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA), and €27 million to research infrastructures, among others. A lower budget means the already overstretched programme benefit ever fewer researchers and innovators, further reducing its low success rates. For 2023, the Council wants to slash the proposed €12.3 billion budget by €663 million and to divert unused money from previous years to the EU’s new semiconductor partnership in the Chips Act.įor the research community, the first order of priority is ensuring the €663 million stays in next year’s funding pot. It’s that time of the year, and the Brussels research community is urging policymakers to ensure there is enough money for the EU’s Horizon Europe research programme in 2023.Īs ever, the Commission has proposed a budget for Horizon Europe, the member states propose to lower it, and the Parliament has risen to defend it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |